A couple of days ago I was contacted by the son of an aged care nurse, asking if I’d be happy to link to an article he’d written. I’ve been meaning for some time to write an entry about aged care in Australia, and Tariq has kindly done a wonderful job himself.

Australia’s aged care nurses under fire
Australia’s shortage of aged-care nurses doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Leading Age Services Australia projects a 66,000 shortfall in home care places by 2050 according to the Sydney Morning Herald, and 83,000 new nursing homes will be needed within the next decade.

Considering the difficulty that Aged care nurses are having meeting current demand, the newly-elected Prime Minister has devised an approach to this threat that is novel, to say the least.

He’s taking away their money.

In a move described as “mean-spirited” by Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) Federal Secretary Lee Thomas, Mr. Abbott plans to walk away from a $1.2 billion Labour-implemented scheme that would have granted much-needed pay rises to Australia’s 350,000 aged care workers. Instead, the funds will go into the aged care funding pool.

This has been tried before, and the result is entirely predictable.

According to Thomas, “Since 2002 there has been a range of Government funding initiatives directed at enhancing the capacity of aged care employers to offer competitive wages, including $211 million over four years in the 2002-03 Budget and a further $877.8 million over years from 2004. Unfortunately, these additional amounts were not tied to bargaining and consequently hardly any nurses or assistants in nursing saw any benefit ”[italics added].

Nurses in aged care already receive between $168 and $300 a week less than their colleagues in public hospitals. What’s worse, while aged care workers are among the lowest-paid members of the health care community, the challenges they face are among the most difficult. Aged care introduces a host of new issues, the dementia epidemic is growing and dehydration and malnutrition become more difficult to diagnose.

Baby Boomers will overwhelm nursing homes over the next 20 years. Australia’s aging population is going to require some 20,000 more aged-care nurses. Labour’s plan was designed to help the aged care workforce almost triple in size by 2050.

Mr Abbott’s rollback will do the opposite, shrinking the number of aged care workers. The life of an aged-care worker is already a harried one. Their workloads can be unmanageable. The absence of nationally mandated nurse to patient ratios and the long hours (according to the ANMF, nearly one in four nurses works double-shifts), exacerbate the challenges of an already difficult profession.

Surely, Mr Abbott must realize that if these matters are not addressed as a matter of urgency, new nursing graduates will not choose aged care. In the face of a nursing shortage, the profession needs to become more, rather than less appealing.

Thus far, Mr Abbott has only offered stopgap solutions to these issues, like 457 visas, which Thomas rightly describe as a “band-aid” solution.

The solutions are obvious. In Thomas’s words

The only viable way of recruiting and retaining aged care nurses is to pay close the wages gap and pay them what they rightly deserve. This will ensure that there is a sustainable, skilled workforce is available in sufficient numbers.

Australians must not wait until it is too late to take action. Mr Abbott needs to know that placing the $1.2 billion specifically allocated for better wages into a general funding pool is the same as directly taking the money away from nurses and other care staff. For the sake of Australia’s most vulnerable, write to Mr Abbott himself, contact your local Member of Parliament, call talkback radio, get on to your social media platforms, or write to your newspaper of choice. – Tariq Osborne

12 years ago today America suffered its worst terrorist attack; images from that day have become iconic, and many of those features fire fighters – 341 fire fighters died, along with two of FDNY’s paramedics, 60 police officers and 8 private paramedics and emergency medical technicians.

There’s no question that our emergency services workers risk their lives to save not only our lives but our property, assets, flora and fauna – my September 11 post last year recognised that, but it can’t be acknowledged enough. As I type NSW fire fighters are battling blazes around Sydney, as the bush fire season starts some two months early. It’s been a warm, dry winter – there’s more to come.

I’ve written before about the Liberal Premiers’ attacks on fire fighters (here and here in particular) – on funding, staffing, equipment, and on resources for volunteers in rural areas.

I was surprised and dismayed – more than I ought to have been, in retrospect – to discover that the same thing’s happening in London: a Tory politician (in this case London Mayor Boris Johnson) has decided London’s over-supplied with fire stations and, over the protests of a majority of Borough Councillors, is about to exert mayoral privilege to overrule them and close approximately ten per cent of London’s fire stations. You’ll be shocked to learn that many of these are in the least wealthy trusts (the British version of local counsel districts), even though they have the highest density of population.

I heard about a protest being organised by London fire fighters, who’ve spent the last twelve months campaigning against the closures, and decided to join them. I was fortunate enough to meet Kelly Macmillan, a fire fighter and member of the Fire Brigades Union – she was sitting in a truck blaring “Burning Ring Of Fire” and was very helpful in giving me some background.

There were many more FBU members present, but they wouldn’t clump together in a conveniently snappable bunch

Perhaps fifty fire fighters attended the Mayor’s question time, along with members of the press, the public – and one Aussie nurse.I apologise for any terms I get wrong – I don’t know as much as I ought to about my own local government, let alone Britain’s. The horseshoe is Borough Councillors; the desk at the top is the Mayor, Boris Johnson – a Conservative who vowed, when he ran for office in 2008, that he wouldn’t cut services. he says today that the closures would make the Brigade more efficient – a wonderful example of conservative arithmetic that I’ve seen at home: somehow fewer workes with fewer resources become more productive, irrespective of how much productivity’s already improved.

London Mayor Boris Johnson

Unlike Parliamentary question time at home, the gallery interjected strenuously, and though there were requests they be quiet, nobody was evicted. Mayor Johnson became increasingly flustered during the proceedings, rumpling his hair, fiddling with his sleeves, and became increasingly short with those who disagreed with him – twice he expressed outrage at Councillors from his own party, who selfishly put the needs of their constituents ahead of party unity, and at one point he told an official to get stuffed. It’s not Paul Keating-worthy, I grant you, but he never seemed to insult from a position of pressure.

Major Johnson’s arguments will be familiar to us all – he says that regional areas are closing fire houses, that deaths from house fires are dropping, that there will be no forced redundancies, and that there isn’t inexhaustable funding. I like that last point – when was the golden age where financial decisions weren’t needed?

The FBU says deaths may be dropping overall but have increased in high risk areas, some of which are affected by the closures; that the population of London’s projected to increase by 1.5 million by 2018, with no plan to increase services; and that the FDNY, which services a city with roughly the same population in terms of numbers and density, has twice as many fire fighters as the London Fire Brigade. They also point out that Mayor Johnson reallocated funding that should have gone to the fire service to police.

My favourite point was made by a Councillor – in response to Mayor Johnson’s observation that regional centres are closing fire stations, he pointed out that they’re also cutting police numbers; would the major, who’s run strong campaigns on the need for a visible and significant police force, look at reducing their numbers and funding next year? The applause was loud and sustained. This,incidentally, is at a time when at lest one regional area’s recommending Police Chiefs run the fire brigade (link), and Scotland’s already decided to merge the two services.

Here’s what isn’t mentioned – those fire houses occupy valuable land. They’ll be sold, turned into housing – often high density – and when there’s a need to increase services it won’t be viable to purchase or built on land. We’ve seen it happen, in the UK and Australia, with schools – London now faces such a crisis in school places that there are suggestions for three day week programs, or split shifts – I can imagine the joy with which my colleagues in education would greet this, and suspect English teachers are no different.

I close with two observations, after comparing the UK and Australian situations at some length. First – the UK shows us the future, unless we’re very careful. The Tories have been dismantling the NHS by stealth, so that care is now markedly different depending where you live – that’s not universal health care. Wherever there’s a profit to be made, however short sighted and short term, whatever the cost borne by society, they’re for it if it boosts the bottom line. now that we, too, have a conservative government – led by a man who seems incapable of seeing to the end of some sentences, let alone a time frame past a year – we have to be more vigilant and united than ever before.

Which brings me to my second observation – I already knew this, but it’s always worth reinforcing, because it’s easy to lose sight of: whatever differences there are between us, more binds workers together. Whatever our industry, our nation, our skills and our unique issues (like ratios and skill mix for Victorian nurses and midwives), this is clear – we have to act together or fall apart. This holds in individual workplaces (a manager who bends or breaks conditions because she knows nobody will stand up), companies (the introduction of disadvantageous changes), in mass action (like EBA negotiations), and when we’re attacked en masse (like WorkChoices).

We have the power, we just have to recognise it, and use it. Though only 18% of Australian workers are union members, there are still more of us than them – and the more of us who are informed, involved and committed the better off we all are. If you’re not a union member there really has never been a better time to join than today; if you’re already a member of your union bravo! – now look at how you can contribute beyond just your membership fees.

As I’ll be writing about in a couple of days, your union isn’t a building in the city, it’s not elected officials, and it’s not the staff – a union is its members, and it’s only as strong as they, as we, are prepared to be.

Solidarity to my fire fighting colleagues, at home and abroad, and best of luck with your mission to protect your selves, your colleagues and the public.

When Kevin Rudd was elected as Prime Minister in 2007 I was pleased – not just because it meant the end of an era of industrial relations disaster and increasing xenophobia, but because he seemed like a nice guy – competent, and capable of leading Australia forward.

Though interested in politics, I wasn’t as involved as I’ve recently become. Even so, I started hearing about unrealistic expectations of staff, high turn over, trouble adjusting to the increased scope of leadership, micromanagement and an inability to delegate.

When the ALP caucus decided that three years was long enough, and decided to install Julia Gillard as PM – over her protestations – I was pleased. I (very) tangentially knew people who knew her, and I’d received an impression of competence, intelligence, big-picture thinking. Most of all, she seemed to be a superlative negotiator – adept at dealing with individuals, groups and issues.

I had also heard that she had previously been involved with two married men. I’m no fan of infidelity, but I do also think the greater moral onus is on the married party, for all that it’s almost always the woman who’s apportioned blame. Australian politicians, like politicians the world over, aren’t universally known for their fidelity, so why this aspect was so often trumpeted by her attackers I’m not sure. I do know that we have had, and it’s rumoured we continue to have, men in positions of political power who drape themselves with family, give speeches with their wives prominently at their sides, while having a long-term affair. This is well-known to the press gallery, and is not only given as a reason why they’re unfit for office but actively kept quiet.

A woman of integrity, PM Gillard took Australian to an election after she was installed as leader – and her party won*, but only because the minority parties and independents sided with her. Without a clear balance of power, delicate negotiations and compromise are needed to pass any legislation.

PM Gillard not only passed a record number of legislative changes, she managed two major reforms – the creation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme to allow Australians with disability, and their carers, greater opportunities, access and equity, and the most substantial overhaul and funding change to primary and secondary education since PM Whitlam introduced free tertiary education.

In addition PM Gillard introduced a carbon pricing scheme primarily intended to reduce fossil fuel use, through financial disincentive. Critics point to the small amount of revenue raised, conveniently overlooking the drop in power usage – it was they, not the ALP, who called it a tax.

And throughout it all, on almost every day of her Prime Ministership, Ms Gillard was subject to attack on three sides – as expected, from an opposition that was relentless and personal; surprisingly, from a press gallery that was myopic and often partisan; and, destructively, from an ousted PM who refused to put his ego and ambition on the back burner for the good of his party, his government, and his country.

And, after three years, two challenges, and an election date announcement, Mr Rudd was reinstated by caucus. After three years of criticism of PM Gillard, his supporters admonished us to be quiet in the name of unity, to pull together and save Australia from the threat of a very conservative opposition, poised to win. Forget their own continual sniping, forget the fuel they heaped on a bonfire of speculation – we need to be as one.

And I, like PM Gillard, did. I tweeted that I was disappointed, that I mourned the loss of a PM who was not only our first female leader but also – and more importantly – a superlative one, and I expressed concern that the reasons PM Rudd was ousted were unlikely to have changed. They were, after all, aspects of his personality.

I worked for a Labor win – I tweeted, posted, blogged and spoke with friends; I appeared on a YouTube ad, and (though I haven’t seen it) a nationally broadcast campaign ad in the last week of the campaign; I door knocked in a marginal seat; I letter dropped; I attended a workshop at Trades Hall in Melbourne; and I hung fliers about the risk Mr Abbott poses to workers.

Throughout it all I promoted the history of both parties, their traditional ideologies, and the perennial risk of the Liberal party to workers, the disenfranchised, and those who already have the least. I pointed out that Labor had trebled the tax-free threshold, and would raise superannuation contributions. But I couldn’t bring myself to say anything about PM Rudd, because the truth would be damaging, and I won’t lie.

So a silver lining of the ALP’s defeat – which is, despite media coverage, a small swing and nothing like a mandate – is that I no longer feel constrained.

I do not hate Kevin Rudd, but I am disappointed that we elected a small and petty man to an office that should be filled by people of scope and capacity. I wish he had lost his seat, and was thus no longer an internal force for fracture and disunity – though I suspect he’d then be on any commentary panel that would have him, exerting what influence he held. And I blame Kevin Rudd for the disintegration of a party who’s strayed from their ideals, and their base, but who had the potential to win this election, restore itself to glory, and serve the country that I love.

I hope that I, like many Labor supporters, can move on from the acrid recriminations that have beset us of late, and focus on what unites us. The Left needs to emulate the Right in one way – as George Lakoff points out in his superlative book Don’t Think Of An Elephant, the factions of the Right long ago tabled their differences to concentrate on their mutual goals, creating linguistic frames that are only reinforced when countered by the Left. It’s well past time we did the same – look to the future, fight the worst that the Liberal party has to throw at us, and begin campaigning for the next election.

My next posts will return to this blog’s original themes – the state of the state of Victoria under a Liberal Premier, and issues of health care, industrial relations, unions, and social justice.

*I say “her party won” because – contrary to the apparent beliefs of many Australians, this is not America – we vote for local representatives and their party. The only people who voted for Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott etc were those people in their electorates, which is how we (unlike the US) can have a change of leader without reference to the public.

Australia’s in the final week of a significant election – the outcome’s close and the stakes are high. Though we have a number of minor parties, there’s no question that the real battle’s between two major parties – centre left Labor and Australia’s mainstream conservative party, the Liberals (who generally align with the National party, and are collectively known as the Coalition).

Last time they were in power, the Coalition introduced significant changes to workplace legislation, introducing an Act called WorkChoices. Among other things, the Act reduced the capacity for unions to represent members, made union officials’ right to enter workplaces more difficult, weakened the power of the dispute arbitration body, and made it far easier for employers to offer disadvantageous conditions to employees. The leader of the Liberal party, Tony Abbott, has denied that he will reintroduce WorkChoices – a legislative reform he calls then-Prime Minister John Howard’s “greatest achievement”. WorkChoices, says Mr Abbott, is “dead, buried, cremated”- except that he is open to a number of industrial relations reforms, many of which are eerily similar to those that were in the WorkChoices Act.

As a nurse, a unionist, and a believer in fairness, equity and natural justice, I have significant concerns, and so this election I’ve been more than usually active – I’ve participated in two ads for the Labor party, and spent yesterday door knocking in a marginal seat. In addition, I’ve increased my level of political activity on social media – not that I’m ever particularly apolitical!

I know that, whatever their intentions, politicians break campaign promises – sometimes because circumstances change, sometimes because they had no intention of keeping them. So while what politicians say in the lead up to an election gives us an idea of what’s important to them, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour – of an individual, and of the organisation of which they’re part.

PM Howard differentiated between core and non-core promises, though not until after he was elected. His party faithful, Mr Abbott, has similarly said that he doesn’t consider promises he makes to be real unless they’re “blood oaths”.

In Queensland Liberal Premier Campbell Newman, elected after promising to protect jobs, has already cut over 14,000 workers, including nurses, midwives, and funding for entire centres. There’s money for sports grounds, but not for health – including a bus transporting Indigenous people with renal failure to dialysis.

In New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O’Farrell has weakened WorkCover legislation, making it harder for injured workers to be covered, seek compensation, and return to work. The $1.7 billion he’s cut from education means over 15,000 jobs lost and – at least as importantly – significant reductions in the provision of education to the children on whom WA is reliant for a future. Premier O’Farrell’s cuts to fire brigade funding means that stations have closed over 860 times in under a year – over 10,000 fewer hours of coverage for NSW residents.

In Victoria Liberal Premiers Ted Baillieu and Denis Napthine have created the most prolonged EBA negotiations in our state’s history – with nurses and midwives, with teachers, with fire fighters, and with paramedics. Failure to invest in more nursing staff in emergency departments and retaining paramedics means we lose over 10,000 hours a month because ambulances are ramped outside hospitals instead of being available to respond to ever category one calls.

West Australian Liberal Premier Colin Barnett has privatised public hospitals and prisons, resulting in reduced access, fewer jobs, and reduced assets for the state.

That is the Liberal way – sell off public assets to bump up the bottom line, which is great in the short term. In the longer term, though, it means less oversight over how those assets are run and maintained, restricts service provision to the public whose taxes built the assets, and means profits aren’t returned to the community. Not to mention the fact that we’re running out of things to sell off.

While there’s no question some are struggling, as a whole Australians have never been better off – in contrast with the Liberal line about rising costs of living, we’re demonstrably better off than we were six years ago, and we have more disposable income than ever before – it’s just that our expectations of what we ought to be able to have has raised beyond avarice.

I don’t agree with every aspect of Labor policy – indeed, some actively distress me, including PM Rudd’s harsher stance on asylum seekers. And I make no secret of the fact that I would be happier with a Labor party headed by former PM Julia Gillard, who seemed adept at negotiation well beyond how much she’s been credited.

These concerns have been somewhat diminished after watching the ALP’s campaign launch today – Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was stirring, strong, direct and engaging, and PM Rudd was future-focused, clear, dynamic and uniting (his speech), though I’d rather the last section talked about the Labor party’s making a comeback rather than mr Rudd doing so.

However, whatever concerns I have about PM Rudd, or about the rightward drift of Labor, the fact remains that, while there are some aspects I have concerns about, every aspect of the Liberal party worries me – natural justice, industrial relations, economic management, protection of our least advantaged, investment in the future, capacity for long-term and big picture thinking, integrity, and trustworthiness. And on the matters of asylum seekers and the environment? However far Labor have fallen short of ideal, they beat the Liberal party by a country mile.

I’m overseas next Saturday, so I’ll be voting tomorrow. For the majority of Australians, though, election day in just over 120 hours away – and the last polling showed almost a quarter of voters are still undecided. If you’re one of them, spend a few minutes thinking about not just the media narrative but what you know of the history, policies and behaviour of the parties. THink not just about the short-term but about the future – about the services you and your families may need, about the kind of care you’d like to receive from health providers, about the future you want for your children’s education and job prospects, and about investment in infrastructure.